On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
> On October 6, 2015 at 6:18:32 AM, David Cournapeau (courn...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > The significant number is not so relevant if you buy the argument > > that it is useful to downstream packagers: it may be a few users, > > but those are crucial. > > > > I also forgot to mention that the ability to test something without > > building is crucial when you want to distribute binaries. > > Is it actually useful to them? None of the Linux downstreams I know of have > ever mentioned a preference for it. As far as I know, the only preference > they've ever expressed to me is that the tests are included in the sdist. > It is at least useful to me, and I am packaging quite a few binaries. > > FreeBSD relies on ``python setup.py test`` as it's preferred test > invocation, > so it apparently doesn't find it useful either. > I would like to hear their rationale before guessing. It is hard for me to imagine they would not rather test the binaries rather than from sources. Something as simple as making sure you have not forgotten runtime dependencies becomes much easier this way. David > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 > DCFA > > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
